tv Lawmakers Address Civility Collaboration CSPAN October 4, 2021 10:00pm-12:06am EDT
p.m. to take your calls and tweets. at 3:00 p.m., a discussion about the opioid epidemic with the author of "empire of pain" and the author of "death in mudlick ." at 4:00 p.m., a look at russia, featuring catherine belden and the author of between two spires. -- between two fires. and olivia campbell with women in white coats. at 5:00 p.m., kansas democratic representative davis talks about her book. i kid becomes a congresswoman. watch coverage of the 21st annual national book festival sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2.
[inaudible] the committee will come to order without objection. the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. i now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. i won't use all five. earlier this year. this committee made a conscious decision to explore some topics that aren't always easy to discuss. it's one thing to acknowledge conflict in the workplace is unpleasant, but it's quite another to really dig into that unpleasantness to ask why it exists and what we can do to address it. these conversations are hard because they force us to consider our own actions and to think about the roles we play in an institution that has become
increasingly polarized. none of us want to shoulder the blame for congress is low approval ratings, but every member bears responsibility as uh one of our witnesses shoulder richards has said there's never been a drop of rain that believed it was responsible for the flood. i thought of that on my walk to the capital this morning as i got drenched. so while these conversations are tough, we need to keep having them. we need to address the institutions problems instead of acting like they'll somehow resolve themselves because they won't. the bottom line is that if we want things to work differently, we need to do things differently. the good news is that this committee gives us an opportunity to do just that. we are providing a forum for discussing some of the thorniest issues members confront on a day to day basis. our mission is to make congress work better for the american people and in order for that to happen. members of congress also need to work better. institutions are a reflection of the people who work for them and
nearly every member i know is here because they want to solve problems and make things better for the folks they represent. but the desire to do good isn't reflected in the dysfunction that's more often on display. our committee held a planning retreat earlier this year and we kicked things off by talking about why we ran for congress in the first place and whether congress has met our expectations and there was a lot of hopefulness expressed. one member said she was here too open doors for more people to have a voice in politics. another spoke about her strong desire to be part of the solution. and one member summed up the congressional experience best when he said, i've never been more disappointed or more inspired. there is so much desire to get things done and so much frustration with the process. the system often feels top down, which makes it hard for rank and file members to feel empowered. what's more as we've discussed in this committee before. the incentive structure can sometimes feel out of whack numbers are recognized more for racking up social media hits than they are for hard work. the frustration is definitely there. but today we're going to focus on harnessing that desire to get things done.
every member wants to be effective and productive on behalf of the people they serve. the trick is figuring out how to turn that desire into tangible action. the experts joining us today know a lot about the tools and approaches that lead to success in the workplace. they've researched and advised top business leaders all over the world and understand how to build and maintain successful teams. they understand what factors motivate people to produce high levels as well as the connection between job satisfaction and success. the research shows that leaders who practice civility and who take a collaborative approach to their work, are able to produce and achieve at higher levels. so i'm looking forward to talking about how members can apply these principles to their own work in congress and figure out creative ways to move their policy and political goals forward. as with our past few hearings, the committee will once again make use of the committee rules we adopted earlier this year that give us the flexibility to experiment with how we structure our hearings. our goal is to encourage thoughtful discussion and the civil exchange of ideas and opinions. this is the wonky part. so in accordance with clause two j of house rule 11, we will allow up to 30 minutes of
extended questioning per witness and without objection time will not be strictly segregated between the witnesses, which will allow for extended back and forth exchanges between members and the witnesses. okay, vice chair timmons and i will manage the time to ensure that every member has equal opportunity to participate. any member who wishes to speak should signal their request to me or vice chair timmons. um, and i know we've got some uh, participating virtually. so just give us the yeah tug of the ear as you wish mr lotte. additionally, members who wish to claim their individual five minutes to question each witness pursuant to clause to j2 of rule 11 will be permitted to do so following the period of extended questioning. okay with that, i'd like to now invite vice chair timmons to share some opening remarks. >> good morning. thank you all for traveling great distance to be with us today. this is our third hearing on civility and how we can get congress to actually do the job
the american people want us to do, which is working together to solve the biggest challenges that we face. it's been years that we've been talking about immigration and healthcare and debt and spending. and we really haven't gotten very far on many of these issues and it's definitely not the right path forward. it has been a destructive uh, experience. we can see the challenges we're facing now. we have to find a way to work together and i think that this issue, civility, and how we have really fact based, collaborative policy making. we have to figure this out. we really have to figure this out. and i think that this committee has the potential to make recommendations that will make congress work better for the american people. so this subject in my mind has been divided into three categories. the first is time, the second is incentive structures and the third is relationship building. time is one that we've talked about for the last 2.5 years.
in 2019 we had 65 full working days. so 65 full working days, we had 66 travel days, fly in, fly out days. the 6:30 vote we took on monday. the, we called, i called a bed check vote, make sure you're here. that's not a working day. we didn't, we didn't do any work on monday. so you know, this week we have tuesday wednesday, thursday, four working days and we fly out on friday. so we can't have 65 working days every year and think that we're going to solve problems. we just have to have a way to be here more. and we've talked about that. and you know, it's not just physical presence, that's what we do when we're here. i call it pin balling. you know, you've got committees 12, sometimes three or four, you you have subcommittees, 2, 3, 4,
7, and then you have votes and then you have fundraising and then you have a constituent meetings. there's just so much that you can do and um, generally speaking people that run for congress try to do everything. and when you try to do everything, sometimes you either let things slip through the cracks or you don't do some of the things very well. so time is there is one really important one. we have to free up time for members to do their job and to engage in this fact based policy making incentive structures. as a second, we have a lot of conflict entrepreneurs. the loudest voices are heard and rewarded often. and the people that are working to solve the problems are, it's just a tough road and it's not nearly as rewarding as yelling from the top of the mountain. so we've got to find a way to incentivize collaborative fact based policy making. we have to find a way to facilitate an exchange of ideas from a position of mutual respect. and not use the often provided political talking points and
have, you have no idea what's in the weeds. but somebody gave me a piece of paper, i can, i can talk about a mildly angry may angry way. so we gotta get away from that. and we got to find a way to actually dig dig deep on these issues because the, the answer to these problems is not going to be on one page of paper with bold font. last is relationship building this kind of ties into the first this kind of ties into the first and two and it is embodied in the term civility norms. we don't have opportunities for relationship building across the aisle, largely because of our. -- because of our schedule. incentive structure doesn't reward it. we have to create physical space in the capital. we had, we had a dinner a couple of weeks ago, months ago and it was wildly challenging to get 12 members to have a dinner on this complex. it was wildly challenging. and when we thought we figured it out, they wanted $7,000 and that's just not gonna work.
so you know, in there's physical space all over the capital, we you should be able to walk off the floor and have a cup of coffee with with a number and have a conversation about these things, not go home turf, home turf. come to my office. i don't wanna go to your office, come to you know, it's the physical space cannot be overlooked in this conversation and again, you gotta have more time, you gotta have incentive structure. so that's where i've been thinking about these things. i'd love to have. can't wait to hear your thoughts on these issues and how we can really fix this problem. it is i believe the most important thing that this committee will do, and i just really appreciate you taking the time to travel this far distance and look forward to hearing from you and with that. mr chairman, i'll yield back. >> thank you. so we are joined today by three experts who are here to discuss how members who pursue a civil, collaborative and leadership oriented approach to their work in congress are better able to achieve success. witnesses are reminded that your written statements will be made part of the record.
our first witnesses. dr allison craig. dr craig is an assistant professor in the department of government at the university of texas at austin. her current book project, the collaborative congress examines how rank and file members of congress worked together to craft substantive and successful policy proof -- policy proposals in a polarized congress. dr. craig worked for several members of congress both on the hill and in district offices from 2001 to 2012. dr. craig you are now recognized , for five minutes. >> thank you, judge, vice chair timmons and committee members for inviting me here to speak with you today about an issue that i care a great deal about. so when i tell people that i study collaboration in congress, it usually prompts a joke along the lines of how can you study something that doesn't exist. uh so i always like to start by just saying that, you know, despite what people think, you know, there is actually a lot of evidence of members do looking uh for opportunities to work together both within their own party and across the aisle.
you know, nearly every member of congress engages in at least some degree of collaboration. and the average member has about 15 people that they work within -- that they work with in a given congress. and that's going to include both policy, working on legislation, includes everything from writing legislation to chairing a caucus. but obviously there's a lot of room to grow. about 7-8% of bills introduced are the result of bipartisan collaboration. given the substantial benefits of collaboration of working together on legislation, that number should be significantly higher. bills that are presented as the work of a pair of members are significantly more likely to pass and significantly more likely to be enacted. so if you just exclude post offices in all commemorative legislation, uh, the average house bill has about a 10% chance of passing the house over a lengthy period of time. that goes up to about 15% if it's a partisan collaboration, so if it's two members of the majority party working together, and 20% if it's a bipartisan collaboration. so yeah, so members and staff know that bipartisanship is how
you get things done in congress. you hear members say that all the time, that, you know, this is how you get things done around here is to be bipartisan. and so then the question is, why don't we see more of it? you know, i've had a lot of conversations with members and staff on how they decide to reach out to other offices to work together on a bill or a letter over and over again. what i hear is that members want to collaborate more. they want to work across the aisle, but they don't think they can find someone in the other party to work with. they assume it's not going to be worth the hassle. and at the end of the day, it's easier to just write the bill that you want to write and introduce yourself. so then thinking about how to get a more collaborative congress, you know, members work together when you expect that the payoff is going to be worth the effort, right? it's cost and benefit. so you need to both increase the incentives as vice chairman said, and also remove obstacles of working together. in terms of incentives, obviously, your bill is more likely to pis going to be a big one, but whether it passes or not, you know, the sponsor is
going to get most of the recognition there, it's their bill. so someone who is the lead co sponsor may not get credit for passing or even introducing the bill unless they promoted -- promote it themselves. so one of the things that i would suggest to kind of improve the incentive structure is allowed to members to be listed as the sponsors of a bill, it's going to significantly increase the benefits of being the number two, and let them get more substantive recognition for their work. you could even limit it to bipartisan pairs and say this is the sponsoring democrat and this is the sponsoring republican or you could say any two members uh in the first case to highlight that it's a bipartisan bill. other incentives based strategies could include committee chairs, prioritizing bipartisan legislation, promoting the benefits of collaboration to new members and increasing transparency around the suspension calendar. on the other side of the equation is making it easier for members to work together. and this is where i think that there is a lot of work that can be done. you know, members need to be able to find someone to work with and ideally before there's
even a bill because collaboration is a lot easier behind closed doors, but this requires connections, which is one of the reasons that collaboration actually significantly increases once members are in their third term, because now they have the personal connections and the relationships that they can tap into more easily. when you start thinking about who you could team up with from the other party, you naturally go first to your friends, you go to the people that you've worked with before. and so what do you do when your connections are limited? maybe you're in your first term, maybe your go to guy on energy just retired. you know, there are a lot of situations in which members needed some help facilitating those connections. so my other kind of set of suggestions revolve around providing tools to make it easier for members and staff to find someone to work with. you know, committees could create like a nonpartisan member liaison position, who members and staff could reach out to if they're looking for someone else on the committee to work with, like who would be good on this issue. the committee staff would be kind of a matchmaker. and since i'm on a collaboration is like dating kick, you could also set up an anonymous but
moderated sort of messaging board where like staff can go out and post things like in search of democrat on d&c interested in cybersecurity for possible letter uh and and try to facilitate that sort of like very early collaboration uh in that regard, because staff also really do play a big role here. mr timmins mentioned the issue of time. well your staff are here a lot more than the members are and a lot of the times if a member doesn't have a connection, you naturally then go to your staff and say, okay well who do you know that we could work with and so anything that can facilitate additional connections among staff would also i think translate to the member level. so, you know, creating a sort of like coworking space, places for staff and improving the ability of staff to get together would also i think be helpful. you know, the members in all these cases still decided to work together, they still have to agree on what a bill or letter would look like, but this is going to get over that first hurdle of scrolling through 435 members and cold calling someone that you think might be interested. and that brings me just to my final point which is that collaboration breeds collaboration.
you know one of the things i find pretty consistently is that once you know the members who start to collaborate than collaborate more because mutual friends facilitate connections. if you have a lot of relationships, you'll make more. members who work together successfully on one project are more likely to work together on another. and members who have more extensive personal networks or staff that extensive personal networks are more likely to know the right person to go to on this issue. and that's going to again really increase the collaboration. so the easiest thing, it's not actually that easy but for an individual member to do is to start by reaching out to someone that they want to work with. thank you. >> thanks very much. our next witness is shola richards, mr richards is an award winning director of training and organizational development as well as a sought after keynote speaker for commencements conferences and government events. he's the author of two books. this is part of the this
committee's uh amazon dot com sales effort. making work work and go together. which introduced strategies for replacing divisiveness and incivility to create positive living, working and leading communities. prior to starting his own consulting businesses he served , as the director of training and organizational development for ucla. -- ucla health. mr. richards, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. chairman kilmer, vice chair timmons. members of the select committee and staff and personnel who helped to make this very important hearing of possibility as a keynote speaker and consultant. i'm often asked why i choose to engage in the difficult work of civility. they'll always be mean and rude people. a drama free and respectful committee meeting won't travel as far on social media as a 15 15 second sound bite would and you know as they say, nice guys
finish last. right? yeah that's why when it comes to civility. specifically in congress when i told my friends that i was coming here they said to me what's the point? what's the point? to me that's like asking what's , the point in showering? you're only gonna get dirty again? true. right. well. similar to showering civility also is best used when it's done consistently. so what is civility. civility in its simplest form is a sincere and consistent demonstration of respect. without a baseline of respect. there can be no trust and without trust communication , among team members will deteriorate rapidly. without trust, respect and effective communication committee meetings will devolve , into dysfunction, highly skilled staff members will quit and most importantly the american people who rely on this institution to improve their lives will become disillusioned and they will lose faith in
their elected officials. on the other hand, people who consistently demonstrate in practice ability are not only viewed more positively by others based on the research and are more productive they're also , more effective leaders as well. more on that to come. so in this hearing, i would like to share a recommendation on how congress can use civility to create more positive and productive institution that truly serves the american people. it is my hope that every committee will consider beginning each new session of congress with what i call civility norms. to be clear, this is not a code of conduct. code of conduct traditionally are created by the leaders of an organization with the expectation that those within the organization will follow said codes. civility norms on the other hand, are very different. they would be created by the members of each committee for the members of each committee. this would ensure that each
committee's norms would be specific to that committees needs. so for example, it's likely that the civility norms for that were created in the ways and means committee could be very different than the civility norms created in the armed services committee. and that's exactly the point. generic civility rules for large organizations such as the house of representatives for instance, rarely work in the long term due to their lack of specificity in -- specificity. in my experience in the work that i've done i've seen much , greater commitment to actively practicing these norms when a smaller group of people, for example, a committee or subcommittee within the house play an active role in creating those norms. additionally, those greater willingness to hold their peers accountable to those norms because they are the ones who agreed to these norms in the first place. to create these norms is simple and the process is simple. ideally in a committee's first organizational planning meeting of the new congress and of course to be very clear, this meeting would be bipartisan. the members should answer to
-- two very simple civility questions. the first one, what are the behaviors that demonstrate respect and should be reinforced during each of our committee hearings? some examples of responses that i've seen in my work here could be, for example, actively listening and showing respect for others are talking. it could be something as simple as disagreeing with an idea without attacking the person who presented the idea. the second question, equally important, is what are the behaviors that do not demonstrate respect and should not be tolerated during any of our committee meetings? some examples could be making derogatory remarks about other congress people during a meeting or on social media, disrespectful body language like eye rolling while another member is speaking or intentionally ignoring another committee member. the answers to these questions should be agreed upon by the committee members, recorded, and used as the committee's civility norms going forward. additionally, each committee should also determine how they will incentivize behavior that
promotes civility in the committee meetings. an example, for example, would be posting a civility score on the committee's website or on their social media for committee members who consistently adhere to the committee's norms. let's be real. committing to this process may seem time consuming. i get that. but couldn't the same be said about sitting in committee meetings where toxic conflict in civility, grandstanding and dysfunction is the norm. civility is too important to be left to chance. that's why it needs a real process. i am deeply grateful to the select committee for ensuring the civility is finally given the attention and respect that it deserves. and with that i yield back. >> thank you mr richards, our final witness is liz wiseman. ms wiseman is a researcher and executive advisor who teaches leadership to executives around the world. she is the author of multipliers how the best leaders make
everyone smarter and rookie , smarts. why learning beats knowing in the new game of work. her forthcoming book impact players will be available. -- available this october. ms wiseman is the ceo of the wiseman group, leadership research and development firm headquartered in silicon valley california. she's been listed on the thinkers 50 ranking and in 2019 was recognized as the top leadership thinker in the world. we're grateful that you're with us. miss wiseman, you are now recognized for five minutes. >> chairman kilmer and vice chair timmons and members of the committee. thank you for this opportunity to share a few ideas. i've been asked to share a few of the best practices of what leaders in the business world in the nonprofit world due to build an environment where work is productive, where people are empowered, where people are deeply engaged and where people find work fulfilling. and i want to start by sharing a few principles that i think underlie some of those practices and these are these are truths that i've learned, studying some of the best leaders and their
organizations in the world as well as studying some of the worst. and what we find is that even in organizations that are deeply hierarchical where there are very clear reporting lines and rules, the best leaders don't lead with formal authority. they don't lead with threat of repercussions, and they lead through influence. and they lead in a way where people volunteer their best thinking and where people hold themselves to the highest standard. the best leaders clearly lead through influence. the second is that people in all types of jobs at all levels and all types of organizations come to work wanting to contribute everything that they have, they want to do work that is meaningful and they want to do work that has an impact. it's like deeply embedded in us to have this kind of impact. and the best leaders in some ways simply allow that to happen.
they remove the barriers for people to make a contribution. and the third principle that we find is that people tend to do their best work in a climate that is both comfortable and intense. and so what the leader's job is to create an environment where there's an equilibrium between safety, where people feel they can speak out and can contribute where they feel accepted, but also where they feel compelled, where they're stretch where they need to do their very finest work. let me share a few of the practices we see from the very best leaders on this. the first is that instead of just giving people work, the best leaders delegate leadership and ownership and accountability. most leaders want to involve people give them sort of a say , and participation. but when ownership is unclear, people tend to default to the leader. they tend to stall and tend to get disengaged. what we find that the best leaders do is they give members very clear portions of work.
so even small portions of the larger committee's work and they give them full ownership of this. one of my favorite practices on this comes from john chambers, the former ceo of cisco when he was a fairly new ceo to cisco, he's making his first executive hire, he's hiring a vice president of customer support and he says to him doug, when it comes to this part of the business, you get 51% of the vote and you get 100% of the accountability. and i just don't know a clearer or a simpler way to tell someone else that you own this, that you are in charge. just give someone 51% of the vote. the second is that the best leaders tend to encourage their members to set and achieve stretch goals. you know, it's very easy for a manager to assign work based on people's current ability and to give people goals or objectives, but we find that in that case
when you give people goals and it's in their wheelhouse, people tend to do the usual. and we know what the usual looks like in this setting, but people are most deeply engaged when they're given a challenge. something that is a question, not a directive and something that is beyond their current capabilities. it's something that feels a little bit like a mission impossible. one of my favorite examples of this is the former ceo of gymboree, the children's clothing company. when he took over the helm, he could see that there was room for improvement on earnings per share and rather than give targets out to his management team to cascade through the organization, he set a mission impossible. and he said, what would we need to do across the organization to improve our earnings per share by a dollar this year? and people got thinking and soon everyone had a mission impossible goal, something that could contribute to this larger goal that year. they massively overachieve, they set a new mission impossible,
which the next year they massively over achieved in within four years, they had five times increased their earnings per share. so you know a good practice for doing this is to not give people goals or objectives but to give people puzzles to solve. and maybe the most visual example i can give is to ask you to remember the scene from the apollo 13 movie where they're trying to return the astronauts back. it's the iconic scene from this movie. not houston, we have a problem a different one. it's the one where the engineering manager pulls together his team, he dumps out on the table all of the parts that are available in the limb module that's now filling up with toxic gas. and he says to his engineering team, we've got a found a way to make this fit into the hole for that with nothing but these resources. and it's actually the architecture of a great way to issue a challenge is to give people a puzzle. how do we do x.
by y with nothing but z resources. and what happens is people tend to respond because they don't know how to do that actually. and so people start to find answers and it puts the ownership on the team rather than its sitting with the leaders. so the best leaders asked the questions rather than give directives and they create puzzles for their team to solve. a third leadership practice would be to create tough and fierce but really healthy and civil debate. leaders typically in business and in other settings tend to rush to debate where they have fire for the deed. when opinions are high, they tend to debate opinions or issues and topics, but the very best leaders treat debate a little bit like surgery. they do it very selectively and very carefully and everyone prepares and they debate well framed questions with clearly defined options. and one of my favorite examples of this comes out of microsoft and an executive, and running
his business when there becomes , a vital issue, not every issue delegates a lot of those, but when there's a vital issue, he pulls the team together. he says this is an issue we need to debate. here's why it's important. he frames it, he poses the question and then he says, i want you to come back in two weeks ready to debate this and everyone is asked to come with two things. one, evidence, and two, a point of view. when he starts the debate, he lays the ground rules. i want this to be fierce. i want people to push hard on these issues, but i want it to be civil. he defines that and then people start to go, he asked people to come with a position already established. they argue for their point of view and then when things are starting to settle into kind of a pattern. a decision is becoming clear. he mixes it up and he says, i want you to switch points of view. marcus, you've been arguing for this. you know, amanda you've been arguing against it. amanda, you're arguing for it, marcus you're arguing against it , go. or marcus, you've been looking at this from a marketing point
of view and so near, you've been looking at this from a sales point of view. so you are about marketing, you know, marcus, you're all about sales and it's very unsettling, but the team gets very used to it. and in the end, the team comes to a decision that the team agrees to and it's unclear who was the winner of that debate because he's mixed it up. my very favorite debate. -- debate practice is the simplest one. it comes from third graders arguing, debating the merits of great literature and the junior great books program. it's three questions. i will add a fourth question. it's that the leader of the debate should ask the question and not give an answer. two, they should ask for evidence, no one gets an opinion without bringing evidence for it. three. they should ask every person to weigh in on it. and fourth, the one i would add to this is to ask people to switch. the switch creates amazing things. let's also opens up his debates. he has the members of debate around the team, but he opens up the debate to other people in the organization so that they
can observe the debate. the best leaders don't tend to assign work based on people's skill sets or job responsibilities. the best leaders tend to look for what each member of the team is naturally and natively good at. i call it someone's native genius. it's just like what our minds are built to do. it's what we can't help but do and they find a way to tap into that. i see so many leaders who do this as an entire team at the onset of a project, which is like, let's first see what kind of capability we're working with and everyone understands people's genius. at first i thought this was sort of a little bit of a hippie practice. i come from california were prone to hippie thinking. i thought this was a bit strange. every group, every single group i've seen do this where they identify the native genius of each member of a team or committee has said it's the best thing we've ever done. the last one that i would like to just sort of end on is this idea of creating transparency.
i think and what i've seen is , the best way to create civil debate and collaborative practices is to create transparency and put good leadership on display. when alan mulally had taken over forward -- had taken over ford and they were hemorrhaging losses in the billions. he would tell you that the secret to that success was he stopped one on one meetings with his executive team members. he established a joint meeting where they dealt with issues as a team that a simple color coding team to deal with the severity and then he opened up those meetings to members of ford, everyone was to bring a guest and it was remarkable how the behavior of the executives changed instantly. i think there's a number of ways that congressional committees can take can put their leadership behavior on display because people tend to lead it -- at their very best when they know that people are watching
and particularly young people. there's several other practices in the testimony. happy to answer questions about. thank you. >> thanks very much. i now recognize myself and vice chair timmons to begin a period of extended questioning of the witnesses. any member who wishes to speak should just signal their request to either me or vice chair timmons or for those who are joining virtually if you want to , use ray's hand or just tug the ear, or as you wish. exactly. there you go. i really appreciate the testimony from each of you. it seems like we sort of covered three different themes all around how to make the place function a little bit better civility, collaboration and leadership. i thought maybe the committee could start by just pulling on the threads related to civility.
i presume that vice chair timmons will ask a little bit about incentives since uh in his opening remarks, he spoke about that. i think one of the things that that this institution struggles with is this notion of sort of what we owe each other in terms of standards of conduct. as part of this effort, i reached out to a sports coach who had taken over a team that had a pretty dysfunctional culture and he said the rules are what governs us when we're at our worst, and the norms and culture are what keeps us at our best. and so mr richards your suggestion of establishing some sort of standards i think is really important. now here's what's tricky in this place. one person's violation of standard norm is another persons only avenue for exercising the rights of the minority. you know, and we've seen that in this place, we've seen it recently with every suspension build. now there's a roll call vote on,
you know, and we saw it when democrats were in the minority and literally took to the floor and did a sit in on the issue of gun rights, or gun safety. so you see at times things that probably if there were those sort of uh codes of conduct, this is i think it is worth recognizing this is different than rules, right? you're talking about, how do we engage one another in a way that might lend itself to more uh collaborative approach. so i'm just looking for any guidance you have to the committee as we think about this and as we think about making recommendations how to thread that needle recognizing that that as an institution, we want to be respectful of the rights of the minority. and we also want to make sure that the place isn't just dealing with persistent obstruction. >> thank you for that question,
chairman comer, you know, since you brought up sports first and i'm hoping i'll be the first of many sports metaphors throughout today. hopefully when i look at a sports team, i think of a football team and if i remember correctly, mr cleaver also formerly played football. so i when i think of football or any sport really what happens are rules that govern the sport, but there's also unwritten rules around respect not just for the , teammates, but respect for the game. so when you see someone who violates a unspoken norm or a team norm, so to speak, not only the people on the other team upset at that person, but people within the team are upset with that particular player. you notice that people can fight hard and play hard, and at the end, they are trading jerseys because they can still respect
the game. so when we come to the house of representatives and we think about the work that's being done here, the reason why norms are important is that it is conflict with guard rails. so when you see people who are engaging in disruptive behavior, things that make this institution dysfunctional in some way, there should be some sort of guardrail in terms of, hey, this is how we're going to be working here and more than just a code of conduct, but really specific to each committee and subcommittee to see whether or not this is something that would actually work. so in my experience, i've found, like i said in my opening testimony, people are more willing to adhere to norms when they play a role in creating them. regardless of you're in the majority or the minority. this is part of because as we all know, this is cyclical, sometimes we'll be in the majority, sometimes we'll be in the minority. but the idea is these norms should be constant. they make a difference when people actually adhere to them. and most importantly, people are more willing to hold others accountable to these norms because they played a role in creating them. so while it's hard and to do
this and i know we can't legislate people being nice and kind to each other. i just want to be very clear, that's not what i'm saying unfortunately. but what would be nice is that if people could at the very least have some sort of norms, some process that they can remind themselves of when they show up. i think phoenix suns coach monty williams said, and i want to make sure i get this quote right. everything that we want is on the other side of hard, and this is hard. this is not easy. if it was easy, this would already be done. so it's going to require some sort of process and quite frankly, some new suggestions that i'm so happy to get into during our question and answer. but i want to see my time and share with the two fabulous ladies at either side of me. >> i don't know if anyone else wants to speak to that question. otherwise, i will invite vice chair timmins, go ahead and then others who want to pull on any of these threads related to
civility and then we'll shift gears and talk about collaboration. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr craig, i want to talk about incentive structures, particularly at the committee level. we've talked a lot about congress as a whole is for just there's a lot there. 435 members is very challenging. but when you kind of go down to the committee level and say, what can we do to really change the incentive structures within committees, which is where most members of congress do the most of their work. it becomes maybe a little more manageable. we had congressman upton um come and talk about how when he was the chairman of the d&c. they gave priority to bipartisan amendments. that seems like a pretty easy thing for us to recommend, sitting interspersed throughout the diocese. i really think that that is something that's a no brainer just creating forcing people to sit amongst their their colleagues on the others of the aisle. i really think that has
potential modifying the questions questioning structure is something that we talked about actually exchanging ideas as opposed to just using talking points and not really defending your ideas. honestly, that's one of the biggest things that i think is missing in really our country , today, you don't defend your ideas. you can say things that maybe incredibly intelligent or may not make much sense. and nobody actually says, let's really get into the weeds on that. what is the effect of that policy you're proposing? and what about this? nobody does that. you go on fox news or cnn and you get praised. there's no back and forth. one of the things that we've talked about discharge petition, , i mean, 218 is what you got to get. but what if there was another one? what if it was like a bipartisan discharge petition with a lower threshold? do you get $100 and 100 g's? you're guaranteed vote, you know, taking that same thought process to to committees. you're guaranteed a hearing if you get x percent of the committee equal r's and d's. so that causes me to say all
right, i have this thing i'm passionate about, i gotta go and sell it to people on both sides of the aisle, because that's the only way that i can guarantee my outcome. things like that. i mean, throw out some new ideas. talk about those. i'm open to really anything. >> i appreciate that. thank you, mr. timmons. you know, i think that you're right that committees are i think an excellent avenue for a lot of collaboration to occur because it is first and foremost a smaller group and it is easier to get a small group of people working together. you know, i think that having, you know, actually tying into uh the idea of kind of setting committee norms, having one of the norms and work better again in some committees than others like some level of , prioritization of bipartisan legislation. you know, the committee chair agrees that they're going to, you know, if you get x level of support yes, they're gonna put it on the agenda or at least have a hearing similarly with amendments could happen that way. you know, i think that in terms
of kind of tying i guess the committee's into the like the relationship building. like one of the things i like, we'll see how it goes, but i think i like how you're doing because it's questioning here in terms of it keeps people in the room more and that then also i think facilitates relationships and more of a conversation and build connections between members if you have that sort of structure within the committee hearings. in terms of kind of then when you move on to the floor side of things, you know, i think touring around this idea, but the idea of like the suspension calendar obviously is where a lot of bipartisan, the main benefit i think of a lot of bipartisanship is that it becomes much easier to get through on suspension. but a lot of members, i don't really know how that works, especially like in the first couple of years. and so even if you want to say go all, i mean you could go all the way to saying like yes, there's a guarantee like if you can show me that you're going to
get to third that this bill will get two thirds support, we will put on the agenda, but at the very least allow members to like submit their legislation and say, hey, i have enough, maybe two thirds co sponsors, but i have enough bipartisan support here that i'm confident we will get past that two thirds vote and allow them to raise the legislation to the attention of the leadership to hopefully get it on the schedule. would be another one of my suggestions. thank you. >> anybody else have any thoughts on incentive structures. >> i'll jump in, you know? yeah, i have two young daughters and i've learned that the best way to get any type of behavior to change the focus on the behavior that you want versus the behavior that you don't want. and there's been some talk in some ideas around in terms of collaboration but also to with civility is having like a civility score or something that you can actually see in real
time who is playing an active role in getting congress to work again. and this hopefully would disincentivize the folks who want to be difficult and be obstructionist and make things difficult for the institution. but more importantly, it shows what this institution actually values which is collaboration, which is civility, people working together and most importantly doing this in a way that is public so that people can actually see what's going on on social media or on the website. it helps to get people to think, okay, this is important. clearly this is something that's being measured. i don't want to be a person who is staying out of this. i want to be a part of this and hopefully really engage people's better angels and doing the right thing. >> there is something i would like to add to that when i look at what is done in the business world to incent collaborative behaviour, civil behavior, you know, collaborating in the
business world in many cases is , as hard and really complex organizations where people have interests and very different interests. and what the organizations tend to do is first they create case , studies. like here's what it looks like when it's done well and they create heroes out of these people and their probably video based case studies. i think there could be a lot of power in saying where has it been done? -- where has this been done well, where are the positive examples? and let's put that on display and maybe continue to build this library of case studies of successful bipartisan collaborative, good leadership and and civil discourse. that's one thing that businesses tend to do. i think it could work here. another is not just the kind of formal incentives, but spot incentives. a lot of organizations use these peer based spot incentives where anyone without prior approval can see good leadership, collaborative behaviour,
bipartisan legislation, civil behavior and give someone a spot award. maybe it's a lapel pin, maybe it's a sign on their door that says this is what the desired behavior looks like. and it's not only fun to receive one of these, people love giving these kinds of awards. it's incredibly gratifying. i think there's power in doing something that simple. >> thank you, i yield back. >> okay, we have a flurry of hands that just went up. so i've got mr lotta than perlmutter then joyce than phillips. >> thanks for today's hearing. i think it's very instructive, you know, i think that you've heard me say that in my 25 years of almost in the legislature or congress or back to the general assembly i've always pushed through what i always called the
five c's. the top of it was civility and you've got the cooperation in the collaboration and the camaraderie but you know working together but you know it's a tough world out there and i think that's what you even mentioned in your opening statement or maybe mr timmons that time is one of our biggest enemies out there. it's getting to know one another anymore is very very difficult. and for a panelist maybe i could hear from each of you because just you know get your thoughts on how were we are today because again, you know we live in an instant world. people are reading the scroll on the bottom of their tv are something like that, or something off their hand held device to get their information in less than 30 seconds and not delving into it. but when you know when you take away the thoughts of where we are with the internet with instagram, with twitter, with facebook. how do we get out there to make
sure we are working with each other, because it is difficult. i am distracted when the cameras are right outside the house floor. it's the way we address each other on the floor, on the big screen or whatever. we had a rule that you never addressed anybody by their name, it was always where they are from. and to keep things on a nonpersonal basis to phone in. but i'm just curious in this instant world that we are in today, how do you all see that we can get this civility? how do we address that in today's world? thank you. >> i'll take that. perfect.
it's so, it's so interesting when we talk about time and you know, i think we have to get creative when we think about time, how we use it, how we use it within this institution, and maybe quite frankly outside of it. so creatively speaking, what would be cool. and i am using that word intentionally, because i don't think this is happening now is an idea where folks from either side of the aisle could invite a person from the opposite side of the aisle out to dinner. now, i want to be very specific about this because this is not just some idea of like, hey, let's go have dinner with someone from a different party. this is very intentional and i want to be clear when i say this. so the idea behind this to make this work because it's hard to , find time when you have multiple committee meetings in different competing priorities. i get that. but what would be great is that you could have a dinner once a
month that is actually expensed by this institution. now, not the $7000 dinner that vice chair tunes was talking about in his opening remarks, but it could be something like $50 or 100 whatever makes the most sense. but what's important about this particular dinner is, you are off site. you have an opportunity to connect with someone that's not really based on, hey, will you sign off on this bill and things of that nature? but leaving work aside and have an opportunity to get to know someone based on the relationship building that vice chair timmons was mentioning in his open. it should be branded though, and this is really important. it's not like they were going to dinner, you could call it something like just naming a president a jefferson dinner. , hey, so i'm gonna take someone out on a jefferson dinner. now, the idea behind this is that when you brand something, you give it a name, there's an expectation behind it. so it's like when we have this dinner, the expectation is i'm going to take someone out from a different party and we're going
to have dinner expensed on this institution where we can get to know each other and finally build that trust away from the cameras that you see after hearing, where people run out to their favorite cable news station and get in front of a camera and say, look how i did, look how i did. this is more around getting people to get to understand each other, to start humanizing people in taking the time to get to know people and build those relationships. maybe most importantly though, once you find that friend from a other side of the aisle, it's easy to say, i'll just keep taking this person out to dinner every single time. it should switch. so it should be a new person every month in order to be able to get this expense. this is a very simple, powerful way to do this. businesses all over the world, use this as an opportunity to get people to know each other. and i'm surprised that this is not built into this institution knowing that it works. so once you get the opportunity to build this, you can create bonds that go far deeper and hopefully will alleviate the
challenges of time that you were speaking about earlier. i have more but i just want to , stop there for that. >> i would like to add something to this. you know, it's no secret that uh we are, there's a lot of performance going on performing for cameras, performing for social media, performing for constituents. it's happening with our young people performing for social media. i think we know how damaging this is. i think there is some interesting thinking that can be done about how do you allow people to perform for a different audience? and i know there's a practice of allowing schoolchildren field trips to come in and watch. and i just wonder what would happen if committee meetings were open, not just to whatever classes happen to be by, but there was active outreach to bring in middle school field trips and not just have them come and go, but to look for teachable moments and perhaps
these norms of behavior as they are codified or we say, here's what good leadership, civil, collaborative, productive leadership look like. i would think like put that on a piece of paper and give that to each kid who sits down and maybe make a bingo card out of that. maybe you make a checklist and give him a pencil and say just circle every time you notice that behavior. and then maybe the teacher has a conversation about that with the students. behavior would change. maybe you structure in more teachable moments where there's a chance to talk to the, the school classes that come down about what it means to be a steward and not just a representative of geography or a constituency, but what it means to be a steward of a democratic process and the obligations and the higher obligations that come with being a public servant. and i think if you create an
audience that people value, people will perform at their best. i think you could also bring peer observation in or, there's a slew of external executive coaches who i'm sure would be happy to come on a pro bono basis and observe and coach and help people lead at the very best. thanks. but i like bingo cards for school kids myself. >> well now i have to add to that just because i'm really sad. i didn't give my students bingo cards for this hearing because i'm making them watch. but just briefly time in a little bit on the role of time. you know, i think that's one of the reasons why should i. there's a lot of conversations you hear a lot of people talking about how, you know, part of the problem with congress is that no one lives here anymore. and i want, you know, the kids aren't playing on the same baseball teams like this is a very common refrain. we don't actually have a lot of evidence to say that that is what kind of caused the decline
of civility question with that. but i feel like sometimes we get so hung up on these conversations of like, well no one lives here. so we don't hang out. we're not friends that no one really thinks about, so how do we adapt to the new world in terms of finding new ways to make connections and finding uh you know, new ways to have these conversations. i think both the dinner, the dinner idea is fantastic. this is one of the reasons that i also emphasize staff, because again the staff are here all the time, and so if you can facilitate connections between your staff, the staff can then be a bridge to make connections between members. yeah, i mean, i think just generally anything i would say , is that in terms of kind of the instant response, that's also why i think part of it is getting part of what would increase civility is to have a lot of these conversations happen behind closed doors and then come out as a joint united front and make that the announcement rather than having, you know, here's an idea and then, you know, goes back and forth and place different competing proposals on the table and
mr. joyce. just trying to put these into silos, i'm not sure about civility, collaboration and leadership. they're all about the same thing. so going back to the sports analogy, the quarterbacks were the leader of the teams, they wanted to win, period. they made it a better team. what we have under the dome is we have two teams competing. it's different from everybody debating towards the thing, they're part of the same team. so what has been difficult for all of us is the team element
has become more and more pronounced over time. so i just opened it to the three of you, because i think you're all talking from the leadership, you know, the more competitive, competitive,the leader, you know, all of a sudden you're going down one path and i can pick a couple of my committees where i have just a fiercest competitive leader in one committee versus a more collaborative leader in another committee. and you get different results. there's no question about it. so, in the setting that we have, which is different than a corporate setting, you know, it's we're sort of in the game the whole time. how do you manage that? how do you bring out civility? how do you bring out the collaboration? i guess that's my question. >> sure.
it -- if i can jump in on this. i think i do think there's a perception issue more so than, i mean, there's about -- a majority of research showing that the majority of members are mostly just focused on, you know, creating policy solutions and or district advocacy, like a majority are a bare majority, but a majority are, are focused on that end. and so that's where i see the rule of collaboration. i think being really impactful is actually getting those like rank and file members who are less concerned about the partisan fighting that's going on over here and more concerned about working together and making these connections and because like i said, you know, kind of collaboration facilitates more collaboration. so if you have these two members that are really concerned about policy working together and then oh, they're successful. like other people will hopefully try to imitate that behavior and expand the value the norm of collaboration within congress by
just demonstrating good behavior or collaborative behaviour. >> can i jump into that, too? i just love sports metaphors. because i mean using peyton manning and john elway is a great example for this and i know your district isn't obviously in colorado and the idea, right? the idea is when you talk about john elway and peyton manning, the two things about them, besides being super bowl winning quarterbacks for the denver broncos, they also are not just fierce competitors, but they did something that could also be duplicated within this institution. you mentioned before that there's fierce teams that are separated and they're fighting
for their cause. so the one thing that could help interrupt that is intra party policing, where there is someone within the party who was willing to say, hey, listen, you can fight for your cause and fight hard, but still let's remain i think if you are in a politically speaking, a safe district where you are most likely to be re elected over and over and over again. um, because for whatever reason, there's more people in your party there where there's deep blue or deep red, there's less of a willingness to want to engage it -- it if we are we're
gonna be honest. but the idea is if someone from the party within the party chooses to hold someone accountable. this is beginning the process of turning the ship around. that's been so off track for so long and that's what peyton manning did, that's what john elway did. they went to the situation and even tom brady who, sorry? but he went to the tampa bay buccaneers after they were a horrible team in one year, turned them around. and i think it's because the inside of the team, there's a, there's a spirit of accountability which i think is sometimes absent in this um, partisan bickering that we see so often. >> it's interesting. i mentioned, i talked to the sports coach and he talked about they have a player's council where it's that type of holding each other accountable. it's not getting sent to the coach's office because you violated a rule. it's, you know, it's, it's up here basically pulling you aside and say, well, you know, we don't really do that here. i keep wondering if there is a way to structure something like that in congress.
i don't know that there is, but i can tell you, like, if emanuel cleaver came up to me and said, hey, you were outside of the lines here. that would probably change my behavior, right? i mean, he'd be the chair of the players council. mr. joyce. >> you think after 16 months, i wouldn't know how to work it. you touched on a good point. as always derek. but i thought that maybe i'd have those conversations with some knuckleheads who aren't here when they said stupid things that reflected poorly on all of us and uh on top of them,
you know, giving me grief, then they turned around and said even crazier things. so you'd like to think that period appear, discussions would work maybe with some they do, but certainly in this instance, i see it as more uh and i think i'm sorry, but the last speaker, he touched on it, the idea that the tom brady or the coaches, in other words, the leadership has to bring and be incentivized to bring that to the team. and i was wondering if any of the panel had an idea on how that might be accomplished or how the team could search for the leadership to actually make that happen. liz wiseman: um i'll comment on that. i think i first want to acknowledge that i understand that the business world has a different model. i don't think the leadership dynamics are any different that people are people. however, the organization structure creates a very different dynamic. because in the business world as well as the nonprofit world or our school systems, there tends
to be a unifying leader and in this setting there is an absence of a single unifying leader, there's competing teams. which means that the unifying force has to come from within the organization for there to be a functional process. and i want to share just an observation and then maybe a resource, the observation would be, you know, so much of my work is studying power inside of . i've been thinking a lot about this question over the last month. and the conclusion i come to is probably a conclusion that everyone in this room has already come to. but i want to share it anyway, which is in session -- an absence of a unifying force. and if the peer-based leadership dissolves, people need clear leadership.
and i think what's happening is we will as a country trend toward authoritarian leadership. we will see that this vacuum is filled. and if it's not filled in congress, it's going to be filled more and more with leaders who take very authoritative positions and i think more and more as our citizens' electorate, people like me see a lack of peer-based unifying leadership in these buildings. the voters want leaders who are authoritative and dictator-like and i think this is a disturbing trend. i don't think we want to see that on any party. and so, we have to find a structure where this comes from the middle of the organization . or from the top of the house, so to speak. that's probably an obvious conclusion, but i feel like shared. that's the only conclusion i can come to, is we will move more
and more to an authoritative society and that troubles all of us. there's an organization, i think you're familiar with the partnership for public service and i'm a member of the advisory board. i've been serving with them for the last uh no two or three years and it's part of that work they have and we have built a leadership model that takes some of the best thinking out of the business world but looks at what are some of the peculiarities and challenges of being a leader in the public service space and it's centered in the idea of stewardship and public service. and i think it's a tremendous resource to say this is what good leadership looks like in this context. and i think you'll be talking to some members of that group next week. but i would encourage you to look at that leadership model in particular. >> i just wanted to jump on here really quickly. because the answer is that that's a really hard thing to do, frankly. i mean you elect party leaders whose job is to keep your party or get your party into the majority.
that you elect, to be your party leaders are the ones that you think are going to be, you know, keeping your party in the majority and that requires distinguishing yourself from the other party and rewards conflict and so on and so forth. so i'm with respect, it is, i'm not sure that the right idea is to try to change kind of how the leaders are, but maybe i'm really into this like council of now, i want to call it a council of elders, but that's because i'm, uh, like, you know, kind of another sort of create a new leadership position that is a little bit more bipartisan, um, that is elected really in a majoritarian institution. this is so hard to do but find a way to create it so that it was. absolutely a bipartisan position and have them be someone who is like providing, setting this norm of collaboration and voice that isn't necessarily the partisan, the party leaders. or hire staff members, like the apartment parliamentarian
version, the civility director . dean phillips: could i add one small thing to that, too? and just to add on kind of what dr craig was saying, i also think there has to be a reimagining of our leaders around who's their audience? you know, we have to think about this more deeply i if we have an idea that your base are the people who are on twitter who make up what like 20%, i think the only 20% of americans according to pew research are actually on twitter. so that's not your audience, that is maybe the most vocal minority who is speaking up and there is a need to placate those people and there's a way that that kind of moves the conversation towards the fringes to satiate that base. but what would make more sense is to reimagine the audience of the remaining 80 plus percent of people who may consider voting for you, you may consider pushing your agenda if you were
to behave in a way that was maybe more civil, more thoughtful and can engage more people just maybe time to reinvent that and think about it differently. >> mr. phillips. dean phillips: mr. perlmutter and i were just reflecting on the proposition of children, you know, attend everything and how beautiful that would be. even in our caucus meetings because it would change. then again, we have plenty of children already, i would argue. um, there's so much to unpack. i this is my favorite conversation in congress because i was reading chairman kilmer's tweet this morning and he wrote, quote research shows that leaders who practice civility and who take a collaborative approach to their work are able to produce and achieve at higher levels. and having come from the private sector myself, that's exactly how things worked until i got to congress. and i thought a lot about this, you know, there are 435 of us. uh, you know, if we were in a private enterprise or business, uh, surely each one of us would
have been fired already for insubordination at one time or another. but only in a handful. clearly, if there was accountability would probably be terminated for poor behavior. uh, growing up in a household, you know, we had a parent who provided accountability in schools, we had a teacher of principle in business, we have a boss. uh, and here, as i reflect on reward systems and the incentive structure to all of your respective points. it's actually antithetical. it's the opposite rewards, which is so terribly confounding to me. you know, so a couple questions, voters are electing dividers to congress and then those elected to congress are electing dividers to leadership positions. that's pretty clear, it's true on both sides of the aisle. a couple questions. uh, and and one reflection, you know i think we have this vice happening in america. we've got entertainment on on end of the vice. that is using us as pawns to
divide. and then we have gerrymandered districts as you i think you reflected on mr. richards . that that reward you know deeply blue or deeply red behavior and then all the rest of the country is in the middle of this. vice. i want to better understand the psychology behind why both americans might be electing dividers, why we in congress seem to be elevating the wrong people. and then secondly, what if hypothetically there was a third caucus, how would that change the behavior do you think in the institution a more moderate? a combination of thoughtful democrats and republicans perhaps? uh that would be a triangulation if you will of power. would that change anything in the u.s.. congress? so two questions. the psychology behind why and how some internal dynamics might change with a third entity instead of just two teams. liz wiseman: i can speak to a little bit on the psychology of why one of the things that i study is uh i mean leaders, i
call multipliers who bring out the best and others versus leaders who are very smart and capable but have a diminishing effect on others. they tend to be very divisive leaders and often they have staying power in organizations and they have success. and i've spent a lot of time trying to understand why people keep working for them and why people follow them? and i think it addresses a couple of your concerns. and what happens is when people feel voiceless and they feel like their voice is not being heard, nobody is listening to me, i'm gonna go get behind someone who people are listening to. and even somebody abhors this person, this is my only avenue for voice. and it's what happens in the business world is people tend to follow them. the other dynamic that we see out in the private sector is that these leaders tend to have a diminishing effect on others and others get intellectually weakened around them. we become lazy. well i'll just defer thinking to them, i'll let them do the hard
stuff. i'll just sort of be hands and legs and people actually become less capable around these leaders, so they're less capable of standing on their own. so they become places where people degrade around. and then they become dependent on them for any kind of influence. and so i think it's a very disturbing cycle of degeneration . and i see it happening all the time in the workplace and i think it's also happening in our political system. >> and just end to my second question about just in this notion of these two teams? you know, what happens if there's a third team in a construct like alison craig we'll probably changes everything? >> i think it creates more
options more like a market system perhaps. but i don't know, this is not my expertise. so we're like, we're over the edge of my expertise alison . alison craig: i think i'm like obligated to jump in here as the political scientist at the table. so i'm sitting here trying to imagine a third party and i just can't get to the point where it exists. just in terms of thinking about the house the way because of the members that are elected right now. you have, you know, if you imagine everyone on kind of a left right continuum, obviously there are issues that go off on other dimensions. but right now there's actually such a gap between the two that filling in the middle, like members who are even at the more, you know, it's like conservative democrats and moderate republicans are probably better off with still like their own party preferences than going all the way to the other party, the further what part the party's move the less incentive there is to the credit, obviously.
yeah, so i get really stuck on where does the third party come from? because ideally you would have like a middle component and we don't really anymore. i mean, that is really true that the for a number of different reasons actually, um you know, a lot of moderate members are losing their seats and that also i think leads to a more polarized congress. in theory though, you know, and i theoretical version of having three parties, i mean, it definitely changes things because you have to do is, you know, look at parliament's where you have to start putting together these coalitions of okay, so we're gonna forge weird groups to try to get a governing majority. and i mean, you know, i like a good parliamentarian system, parliamentary system, but uh, but that is kind of the dynamic that you would get, where you would have for it would force people to kind of break outside of their group in order to get a majority. and the only other thing i would add on that is that me, well, we do not have a third group. you know, it is important to remember that right now, for the
time being. you do have, i mean, you know, it's about to talk about them on the second album, uh hill, but you have the senate on the other side, which actually does serve to some degree as um it does force the degree of bipartisanship uh if you want to get something actually through the senate, there are ways around it obviously, but you need to get past that 60 vote threshold. and that's going to require members of both parties. and so that is, you know, i think certainly an element that can also help people break out of their coalitions. if you emphasize that a little bit more and focus on that a little bit more. >> before we move on, any thoughts on if ranked choice voting as an example might change the reward system for candidates to broaden their base of support, perhaps, or to not just pander to the base. allison: so that's really outside my area of expertise and fairness. um so i'm really kind of hesitant to jump in on uh because it really varies, you know, i think depends a lot on the state, it depends a lot on the districts that they're running in. i will say on the subject of thinking about the incentives
and districts that, you know, there definitely is a line between the really what we call safe districts, but really the strong partisan districts where there is, if not a disincentive, certainly no real incentive to be bipartisan there. but one of the things that i find in my research is that for members who represent districts where it's not even just the marginal ones they went up to about 60% of the votes, kind of, that 50-60%, range, um the members who collaborate more who have like larger and more robust networks actually do a little bit better in their election. so you have those sorts of districts, that are a little bit more swinging a little bit more moderate than that. actually, the voters end up incentivizing collaboration, but when your district is 80% democratic or 80% republican, they want there with their team and they want their teams positions and nothing else will do. >> yeah, i do see a correlation between good behavior and more competitive districts.
greg's -- >> can you take a quick stab at those two questions? it's really quickly, i kind of am adding onto liz's point earlier around leadership. why people follow leaders who may be divisive in some sense. i think the easiest way to look at this is when you see bad behavior, bad behavior is an unskilled expression of an unmet need. i'll say it again. all bad behavior is, it's an unskilled expression of an unmet need. so there needs that are not being met. and the skill to meet, those are not developed. so you'll find a figure who is able to engage the lesser angels of a person, so to speak and without the skills to manage those needs that are not being met. it's easy to follow someone like that. secondly, and this is outside of my expertise will take a stab at
it anyway, as the idea of adding a third potential party to the table, so to speak. my initial response was i don't see how that would truly fix anything. it's like having a dysfunctional couple and they're married and it's like hey we should add a child, that's going to fix everything. and i don't know if that would. i mean like hey the reason why i think about that is i think about how adding something to a situation that's already dysfunctional without really finding some tools that are going to repair the current dysfunction will be aided by adding something additional to it, if that makes any sense. >> yeah. and the reason i ask that of course is and when there's triangulation of leadership, it forces you to get anything done. you need two of the three. >> true. yeah, that's that. >> but anyway, thank you all very much. i appreciate it. >> mr. cleaver. and then ms. van duyne. emanuel cleaver ii: thank you. this has been very, very interesting.
i almost ran over to make sure i was here in person. we have so many problems and you have been very articulate in uh giving us some reason to, you know, contemplate ways in which things can function better. we have multiple influences in one of them. is the media, and i understand but if you want to get attention and want to become a national personality. i mean if i took off my pants and ran around ah, you know, this building, i mean, i've got -- i would get significant coverage tonight, um, lock there -- >> yeah, lock him up.
>> and i mean, but if i did, you know, to demonstrate that we have naked policy, uh, you know, then heralded and, and so that's a part of it that we, nobody wants to talk about because somebody wants to meet you to get mad at them. however, the good news uh, is uh, two weeks ago, a major news outlet. i'm not gonna mention them because i don't, we, we had this lengthy meeting. and they may not be ready to talk about it, but they are interested in something that you've talked about. and i've talked about here in our committee and that is uh, they want to figure out a way that their particular news outlets can measure stability among members and recognize as
i've said to the committee by every group in the, in the world. i mean, everybody needs to get a 98 or whatever. and they are interested in doing this. we ran into a problem and we talked about this, it was a lengthy meeting and i was thrilled to see that the media outlet was actually wanting to do something to turn down the volume. or maybe more particularly uh to celebrate individuals who were not turning up the volume. and the problem that we ran into is, was it's gonna be difficult to solve. and that is, you know, by personality, by human, by their nature there are a lot of members whose voices are never heard because they just kind of do their work.
get on a plane and go home, do the work at home, come back that they are not going to be recognized by the media. and so if they are the ones who have the greatest level of civility, it's probably not a good way to measure others. and i said to them using a sports analogy, i said, we got a creative way to do it because you can hit .450 in baseball. but if you did not come to bat a certain number of times, you can't when the championship. you have to have a certain number of at-bats to have in order to be part of the statistics. that in the conversation.
and so i wanted to throw that out to you. there are a lot of members who on both sides of the aisle really want things to do better. i have been beaten up by a republican friend, friend who, who said, you know, you, you quit writing the letters and uh, for the newer members, uh, for about five years, i wrote a letter each week to all of the members, 435 members. and then i was in new york over the weekend and another member came to me and said, you're the problem. and i said, what? he said, where are the letters? so i started again. i mean, i think the chairman was probably here when i was doing the letters every week to everybody. so i did one two days ago.
that's going out. so i know that there are a lot of people who want things to be better and, and they don't celebrate, you know, people who are doing a nasty, making a nasty remark. but on the other side, if if you have any ideas on, on this system of measurement, i think this particular new outlet is really interested in doing this because they spend a lot of time with me on this twice and probably watching our meeting because that's where they first got the idea. alison craig: so i can jump in on this. and i don't have an answer for you quite yet on how to measure civility, but i did make a little note for like next project, consider finding a good measure of civility. so maybe, you know, a little bit a couple of years, um, you know, i think that you've raised several, i think really excellent points, um, that, you know, first and foremost, the media is driven by conflict. it's not actually their fault, that's what it's the views that, you know, is, you know, conflict draws attention. but i will say that bipartisanship actually also gets coverage, like when, i mean it's covered in a certain way
where it is covered as like a the rare show of bipartisanship on capitol hill, the number of headlines i've tracked of like the washington post, the new york times, that highlight the rare show of bipartisanship makes it kind of clear, it's not actually all that rare, but if it gets them writing about it, cool, that's great. so when, when bipartisanship is successful, uh, you know, i think it does get attention. and i think the idea i was proposing about having members have, um, or having legislation that has like two sponsors, uh, democrat, republican sponsor, i think would actually help in that it would make that bipartisanship much more visible. it would also make calculate, we could get all sorts of scores to calculate for you if you do that on the physical science side of things. but the other thing i would just say is that, you know, so there's a couple of political scientists at the university of illinois who have done work kind of classifying members, uh, classifying all of you by your behavior. in terms of not civility, but in terms of like your actions, in terms of like, how much do you fundraise, how much do you vote
with your party so on and so forth. and the vast majority of members fall into categories that mr. cleaver was pointing out, don't get any attention. 16% of members end up falling into like the two high profile categories of like the party leaders and leadership, but carrying party warriors, i think it's gonna call them and, what we call the ambitious entrepreneurs, although i really like conflict entrepreneurs to o for that. but that's, you know, a small segment of congress. the vast majority of them are policy at room policy wonks. district advocates, you know, people who are focused on that policy and so, you know, also doing internal work to promote more of that behavior, promote that activity more publicly. uh, could be part of it. um, certainly passing their legislation, obviously they end up getting more attention uh, by making it more public that way. but it is a big challenge. >> i want to add one thought to that. i agree with you. you know, there's a reason why the media covers conflict.
we're interested in conflict. it's part of our human nature . we're drawn to it. it's salacious. it's interesting, it's compelling and rather than try to change that maybe, um, to play with that double down on it, which is, you know, a great movie. something that we're fixated on is all about conflict. no one wants to watch a movie or read a story that lacks conflict. but what we love even more than conflict is conflict resolution. and i wonder if there's a chance to tell stories about conflict and then say here's the conflict, here's how we were warring at odds. here was the no win situation . and here's how people came together to resolve that. these are stories people want to read. these are case studies that would get media attention. so i would play up the conflict and add the resolution piece to it. and i think we could get a lot of attention for it. >> i want to echo what you just said, liz.
that is, i'm so grateful that you said that. because i know that the media is set up in a way to kind of, you know, attract people to drama. i understand that, but i'll be just be for my own personal experience. i feel like i'm pretty dialed into the civility stuff. i had never heard of this select committee prior to like a month ago. and the work that you all do is so meaningful and so powerful . brinkley, -- frankly, when i tell people when i told my friends like, yeah, i'm gonna be testifying on capitol hill about civilities, like there's an amazing select committee on the modernization of congress that's doing really powerful work to make congress work in. there is? so there is a responsibility. and i don't know, on your websites, if you have this front and center, this is something that people can actually see. so people are aware of the work that you're doing. it could make a huge difference
to know that there is hope on the horizon. there are people who understand this problem because i'll tell you on the ground, people are just like, yeah, this is the way congress is broken. that's the way it is. it doesn't seem like anyone's taking the effort to fix it. so this hearing, hearings like this and the work that you all are doing needs to be publicized even more than it currently is. >> the problem. i'm sorry. i'm from kansas city. it's the home of hallmark cards and uh, the whole family, i'm not doing a commercial. although the family, they're good friends of our, but don hall singer reads every script for the hallmark movies. the number one watched network during thanksgiving to new
years is the hallmark channel. my son is an actor. so i've started paying attention to stuff. but one of the things you have to, if you know hallmark, i don't know if any of you know, the culture, i don't every movie ends beautifully. i mean, i mean whatever it was that happened, it's it is beautiful. they have to end that way. and the millions of people who are watching, they know how that's gonna end. and yet the overwhelming majority of americans watch it from thanksgiving to new year, because they already know how it's gonna end. and so people are hungry for things to work out well and you know, and they enjoyed and celebrate it. i think we're fighting against it here. i don't want to get him in trouble. i have a friend who's a
republican. we have traveled all over the world together. our wives are friends. and i said it to him the other day, we were someplace and i said, you know, scared too say anything about it because i don't want you to end up getting death threats. i have two people in prison now. the fbi put them in in two prisons. you know, talked about yesterday at homeland security, homeland -- i'm in homeland security. and so i'm almost, i don't want one of my friends to end up getting, you know threats. and that's and that's where we are right now in the country. you know, you have you have violated the rules of the tribe and therefore we're going to attack you and call you and tell you what we're gonna do to your children and so forth. so i think there's a hunger for it. but if we allow this thing to continue to get out of get further and further and further
out of control, i have a little six year old grandson who i love most of the time. [laughter] he can do some other things and i can't talk about it here. but i actually fear right now for what my little six year old is gonna experience, i mean in our country, and so i think this committee is doing valuable business. i appreciate you being here. i think that uh we gotta get out of this thing where we can't even acknowledge relationships because we afraid to do it. thank you, mr chairman. >> can i -- sorry, i just wanted to jump in really quickly. because the idea came to my mind while you're talking, it does
not solve the problem of death threats, unfortunately. but in terms of we're talking about the hallmark movies and i think one of the reasons that you know the hallmark movies are so popular is because everyone knows for that one month you can turn on that one channel and you will get a feel good movie, but you could actually imitate that behavior in congress where you had to sort of like this is the bipartisanship month or the week, you know, whatever it ends up being. where if you had a week that was focused on, you know, bipartisanship and and collaboration and you kind of centralize all of your activities around that theme. like as a house then that's going to be an easier way for you to get attention from the media. probably also in terms of these like small little bills that wouldn't get attention of themselves, but if you don't know an entire week of it, like right now, i think that would be so shocking that people would be like, well we're definitely gonna cover this. but you know, you can kind of capitalize on that by consolidating things. >> yeah. and you could play it right after shark week. [laughter] >> yes. >> i feel like this is the time
where i should thank c span for being here. but also to cover congress, they did a week covering the work of this committee. they replayed all of our hearings. as you can imagine it was ratings gold. [laughter] ms. van dine. [indiscernible] >> hit the button. >> is it on? all right. i appreciate the work of this committee, but i think it's also incumbent on each of us as leaders to take those responsibilities of reaching out and being everything that we talk about being a leader, being accountable, being collaborative,. as a freshman, this has been an interesting time. i think it's anybody in this room well acknowledge we're
probably at our most divisive that we've been in decades. my third day here, we had january six the week after that we were talking about impeachment. we have a lot of different characters on both sides of our ill, but i don't want to give anybody death threats. but i'm just looking across the table and yesterday representative cleaver and i um signed a deal inking a caucus that we're creating as former mayors trying to work together. and you know, when we were mayor, i didn't have a letter next to my name. people knew where my kids went to school, where we went to church. you know, we were very accessible. and so as a marriage, i think we look at it differently, we want to be productive. i don't know anybody here who's just wanting to be on c-span. i think a lot of us come here with ideas of what we want to do. and we are desperate to be productive, which means working, collaborating. and i'm looking at, you know, ed perlman are at the bottom of the, you convinced me to join the congressional softball game
team. thank you very much for the seven a.m. practices. but i mean those opportunities we are creating, it's not, you know, having a month where we're doing it and it's just kind of hokey, but we're creating those opportunities. last week i was in minnesota with, you know, with fellow colleague phillips. we were going around and talking to businesses that were in his district to find out the commonalities what our businesses across the country facing? and i'm in texas, he's in minnesota, and i'll tell you, there facing the same things and i look forward to having you in texas to do those to do the same type of meetings. i think it's incumbent on all of us to create opportunities to do that. now look, we may not be an agreement on a lot of our votes, but i'm trying to find ways that we can work together now as a freshman i may be naive to be doing these things. i mean, time will tell if they
actually are effective. but i think it's important that we all recognize that we're here to do a job and we can't do a job of feeling that we're doing is just throwing accents. and i don't know if those are interesting ways that have been tried before and have failed. but what are your thoughts on some of those ideas? >> i think that's the essence of leadership. that's my thought. shola richards: i have to jump in too. because, it's interesting ms. and in. i was in your district. tarrant county, um, and had an opportunity to speak at the forth worth convention center and there was a moment where i saw almost the epitome of civility in terms of what i see from -- there was a moment where something went wrong from an a v perspective and the amount of people who came in and didn't place blame and didn't point fingers and just collaborated to get everything
working again. it was hard to explain because there was no republican democrat, black, white, gay, straight born again, atheist. it was just, hey, let's work together to make sure that this event goes off without a hitch . and in my travels around the country, i've always found that the leadership that lives with speaking of, you know, often comes up in moments of crisis, but i also want to see how this can continue in moments that are just a regular thursday or, you know, just a normal way of operating. i think we can get there. i did want to mention to mr. clayburgh, and i'm really sorry about the fear that you shared, about your your grandson, about potential. i mean, it hasn't happened hopefully, but death threats. that could be something that is the problem for even admitting that you're hanging out with someone who's across the aisle,
. miss van dine was talking about going to mr. phillips' district in minnesota outside of st. paul, to have an opportunity to connect and now it's on c span, but the idea is we have to normalize this and as hard as it is to feel like, well, you know, i would rather keep it private for fear of these things, if we normalize that there's nothing to be afraid of having people across the aisle have meaningful relationships, i think we can begin the process of making meaningful change. >> and i would just jump in and say i think trips like the two of you are talking about are really fantastic for a few different reasons. but one of them is because part of working together to solve problems, start with agreeing on what the problem is, and i think sometimes that's missing, you know, sometimes these conflicts can be solved because you're not actually agreeing on what the problem is. and then obviously the solutions
are going to vary. so if you start by doing this fact finding and work together to actually come around on the problem that then i think facility is also collaborating on uh solutions. and then the other thing i would say is again, i think it's a lot of what could be done in terms of just making it easier for members to find people to work with, especially members in their first term who maybe don't have the robust connections that more senior members have. and utilizing the infrastructure that currently exists in the house, like utilizing committee staff is obviously one place to facilitate that. i mean the zoom makes things very challenging right now, but you know, having these sorts of jefferson dinners, which i also to get people to meet each other. like once you get more personal connections, they kind of, you you know, they build upon themselves. and i think that helps a lot. >> oh, one last thing back to mr heinz's point, orientation.
and i know it was probably very odd for you being oriented during a pandemic and everything like that, but if we can also use orientation as an opportunity to set some norms around civility, knowing that being new to congress, that could also be a great opportunity as well. >> indeed, one of the recommendations out of this committee was to do that, we're thinking alike. i think we've covered a lot of good terrain. i want to give folks an opportunity to ask some kind of clean up questions. i just want to quickly and then i know vice chairman timmons has a question, too. to follow up on to dr. craig, i think one of the uh it's not just around incentives in terms of the challenge of collaboration, it's actually sometimes just hard to find who do i want to work with on this. i keep thinking that there are lessons to be learned from private industry. i worked for a management consulting firm that had thousands of people all around the world. and i could literally go onto an internet and say who has
expertise on this subject ? similarly, i don't think anything like this exists in congress where i could come in and say, hey, i'm a new member, i want to work on veterans housing issues. are there other members who have self-identified as wanting to work on that a rural broadband or reducing debt or whatever? it does seem like something like that might be useful and being able to identify the staff person on your team who would be the point of contact for something like that. is that kind of along the lines of what you were thinking about when you said, you know, like a craigslist or something like that? >> that is. but another idea similarly along similar lines is, um, again, within kind of the house internet, if all of the members set up profiles that were like, here are my top three priorities of things that i'm really interested in working on and here are my staff contacts for those, it's a different presentation than what you put out on your public facing web pages because this would only be for internal use, but you know, we do this in academia where it's like okay i'm looking for someone to collaborate with on a paper that studies x.
and it turns out i can pull up their website and i can find, okay, they this is their priority, the priorities in their research. and so i think that would also translate really well if you don't necessarily want to set up a dating site for legislating in congress. >> mr. timmons. william timmons iv: sure, thank you. when i got sworn in. i guess this was 2019. one of the coolest experiences i had was a dinner in statuary hall. it was all the republican freshmen and the marine corps band was there. it was just a very cool experience. and i know the freshman republicans my year, freshman republicans, uh there's some of my closest friends in congress and i have a relationship with all of them. i don't have that on my committee on financial services and i don't have it to the same degree, even close with the freshman democrats from my from
my year. so we're talking a lot about opportunities. and we previously discussed the idea of having committee dinners, annual committee dinners. and the library of congress has a lot of space. i don't think it's reasonable to open up statuary hall for that many dinners. but there's multiple spaces within the library of congress and you could host a dinner for example, financial services. you invite republic, the entire committee and you have 10 seats per table. you do four hours, four days and then you bring in people that you anticipate will be speaking in front of the committee and for hearings. you know, we can anticipate this pretty well. four financial services. i imagine it's the same for most other committees. and you just have a get to know each other. there's no, there's no agenda. it's just, hey, what are you working on? and so i think that's something that is an easy, low hanging fruit that we can do. but there's also this opportunity of issues.
i mean, there's 10, 20, 2030 issues that are very important to everybody. why not have a dinner just to get to know people. hey, if you care about immigration, we're going to have this opportunity where it's going to be an incredible experience to go and have dinner in the library of congress is -- it's beautiful and share a meal together and make sure each table is divided r and d. and these are just lay ups. i mean, i think everybody can agree that this is something that should be going on, that that's not. so i think that we'll spend some time looking into that more. and the other thing was civility, a civility officer. i don't know where they would go. but this is not gonna be easy. what i'm talking about is not something that's just like all right, you do this, somebody's going to have to be in charge of making sure that all the committees are scheduled right? we don't even populate some of the committee's until a certain time. so there's all the scheduling and then you have to make sure that you know, i know the zoloft and roddy davis served on four
committees are filed. five committees is crazy. so you got to make sure that there's no conflict, but it's doable, very doable. so i think that that's a really good direction that came out of everything that we just talked about. any thoughts on that idea, i mean it seems like we're taking everything that we just talked about and putting it into an action item. >> yeah, i'd happily jump in on that. i love the idea of the dinners and having an opportunity from people from different parties to have an opportunity to connect. there's something humanizing about breaking bread, there's something this has been, gosh, since the the beginning of time where people connect more deeply when they have an opportunity to share a meal together. i will also on that vein share something that could be a potential recommendation as well that could be usable from the bisno -- useful from the
business world. and liz kind of talked about this but this is a little bit different is bring your child to work day. now let me explain. not, not necessarily bringing your child into committee hearings, but having an event once a year where because i know the challenges and dr. craig, you talked about this before where people don't live in the district anymore. they live away from d.c. so the idea of bringing your family here for a period of time where they can have an event , where it's bipartisan and there's speakers and there's teaching events. but most importantly, lawmakers and their children get to interact with other lawmakers and their children and the children are an age appropriate events that are things that they can enjoy and have an opportunity to connect. it builds the trust that i think is so desperately lacking in this institution where people can feel like hey my kids get along with their kids and there's an opportunity to do this. one, it will also help to make people understand what their kids, what their parents do for
a living, which is certainly nice. but maybe more importantly, it will remind lawmakers to set positive examples to their children and have an opportunity to connect to people who may ideologically think a little bit differently. and i think it's a powerful way to begin this process and gives people something to look forward to on a bipartisan basis. >> and i would just say i think also the thing that the committee dinners idea is a great idea. i would suggest, instead of trying to make it to the entire committee gets together, because that's gonna be really hard with some of your bigger committees and scheduling as a nightmare obviously. but if you made it so that it was just like a small dinner, like eight members of financial services and the members had to sign up. it also creates some scarcity. like i think that could also get people a little more excited if it's hard to get into the dinner. and so it becomes something that they want to do, they haven't had the chance to do it and facilitate participation, busy schedules.
>> mr. phillips. >> just one more quick question. and i we've spoken about this pretty regularly. just the physical construct of this hearing is remarkably unique in congress. we're facing each other instead of backs towards one another and maybe even more important, we're on the same level. you testifying with all of us, democrats and republicans. do you think the physical construct perhaps of how we do our hearings and conduct our meetings. in my experience, it's a little harder to be rude to someone who's just a few feet from you, not to mention physically on the same level. so, any thoughts on that? >> i mean, 100%. 100%. i think mr. phillips, just this idea of sitting, and i'm a little bit of a political nerd. so i do watch a few hearings in my day, but to your point, it's
having layers about higher ranking people more tenure, sitting higher than the ones that are lower ranking, so to speak and talking to the backs of people's heads. not only does it not increase collaboration, but it's just not really a civil way of doing it. this is an opportunity for hopefully whoever has c span and part of their cable package to see how this actually works when people do look at each other in the eye and have an opportunity to communicate. it's not just the subject matter that's creating this civil conversation that we're engaging in. but i do believe to your point, it is the format. i think it makes a huge difference and i don't want to overstate that. i think it does make a difference to be able to see people and look at them when they're speaking. >> and i want to go ahead. i just wanted to add to that. i do think it's hard to be divisive and dislike people when you are close to them. i want to share just a small story because it's about sports and i haven't been able to add to the sports metaphor and it's something, a story i heard steve young, the former 49ers quarterback, and he talked about one of his opponents reggie white, who was this like fierce lineman.
and he talked about what it was like being the quarterback in the pocket. like knowing that reggie who was, i don't know, like six feet five, 300 pounds of massive offensive line coming at him. and he said, i could hear reggie coming, he was loud. like i knew he was coming to get me, and i lived in terror of this man, he said. but when reggie would come and tackle me. you know, i think he led the nfl in quarterback sacks, he would take young and he would grab him and he would tackle him to take him down and then he would use all of his own weight to flip steve over. and so that steve landed on top of him, so that he would take him down but not hurt him. and then steve said, and then as soon as he tackled me, he'd be like, "hey, steve, how you doing," and steve would be like, "not so, not so great right now actually, but glad." you have to
be like, "hey, steve, how's your dad?" and you know, steve trying to shake it off. and i just think it's this wonderful metaphor which is, you can be fiercely competitive to be on opposing sides. you know, reggie came at him with everything he had and was ready to take him down, but he did it with civility and he didn't hurt steve and i think that's a metaphor for how people can work. -- can be competitive. you can try to be vying for a and with good leadership. it's like we just need a few more reggie white's in congress. so that's what i would offer around proximity. like they're close. >> and the only thing i would add is that i think that, uh, you know, one of the strengths of this structure of a committee hearing is that it does turn into much more of a conversation. i mean your average committee hearing, you know, you come in, you give your five- minute talk and then you leave. you have no idea what anyone else said in that committee, not not everyone, but frequently you
have no idea what anyone else said in that committee hearing. yeah. you know, this encourages people to stay and have this conversation, but it also encourages more of an exchange of ideas and you know, i think that, um, talking about, i don't have a good sports metaphor here. unfortunately, i'm really sad about that. but if you think about thinking about like navigating the fact that there is this like really intense conflict that isn't going to go away anytime soon, so there is still a lot of areas where there is a lot of room for common ground. you know, if you think about going back to your, like people who go back to their districts even if it's a really deep red, deep blue, they're afraid that would be like, oh well, i compromised. and so therefore it's bad. the district isn't going to care if it's something like and we work together to bring you all of this money or we worked together to bring you all of these roads. or we worked together to bring you these distributive politics in particular is you know everyone is very collaborative. but having the conversations i think reminds people of the areas where you can find common ground and then that also then facilitates collaboration. >> terrific. thank you .
okay. with that, i'd like to thank our witnesses for their testimony today and dr. craig, i'd like to thank your students for watching and boosting our c-span ratings. i'd like to thank the committee members for their participation. you're right. the structure we're using is not cosmetic. i mean it's with a guy towards trying to foster some of the collaboration that we're talking about today. as always, i want to thank the staff of the committee for pulling together such a great hearing with three such terrific experts. and again, thanks to our friends from c-span for showing up. mr. kleeberg and not talk about patrick my homes. >> i would like to thank the national football league for the day. so without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. i ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able. all members will have five
>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these companies, including cox. cox is committed to offering internet to eligible families. bridge the digital divide. cox. bringing us closer. cox supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. get c-span on the go. watch the biggest political events live or on-demand anytime, anywhere, on our new
app. c-span now. access top highlights, listen to the c-span radio and listen to podcasts, all for free. download c-span now today. >> c-span's washington journal. every day we take your calls on the air of the news of the day and discussed policy issues that impact you. tuesday morning, we will discuss the biden administration's economic agenda with neil bradley. and cofounder of the third way talks about divisions between moderates and progressives within the democrat party. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern tuesday morning and join the conversation with your calls, texts, facebook comments, and tweets. >> here is a look at the live
coverage coming up on c-span. 10:00 a.m. eastern, the facebook whistleblower takes questions at a senate hearing about private regulations and protecting children. in the afternoon, h.r. mcmaster and ryan crocker testify about the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan. that is 1:00 eastern. c-span 2 at 10:00, the senate continues debate on suspending the debt ceiling and nominations. c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m., lisa monaco testifies about reauthorization of the violence against women act. you can watch all of these on a c-span.org or on our new app, c-span now. now, president biden speaks about the importance of raising the debt ceiling and the impact